D&D General Why ya gotta be so Basic? Understanding the Resurgence of Moldvay's Basic

[PHATsakk43]

Excellent post!
And a nitpick: the rule wasn't removed in Mentzer's. It's in the Basic DM Rulebook, p.20, column one "New rules and items". Not only that, but Mentzer expands the rule with alternative resolution mechanics involving dice different than d20, e.g. roll under with 3d6, 4d6 etc.

This is expanded upon in DMGR5 by Jonathan Tweet.

He goes very far and discusses other methods to create non-linear chances, by doing things like making difficult actions use say 1d4+16, which creates situations where there is a high minimum threshold on the ability to succeed or using die smaller than a d20 without any modification for particularly simply tasks for most of even moderate skills, but still allows for failure by below average ones, like a flat 1d12. And bell curves of multiple dice, like thinking of the probability curve of 5d4 vs 1d8+1d12 vs 2d10.

I’ve mentioned it previously in this post, but it’s a very useful three pages.

 

[rabindranath72]

So apparently it's just OD&D and 1e AD&D that didn't have the rule in their core books? I believe it, but I don't know how I missed it. I never had those editions that didn't have the rule back then.

I'm guessing it must be that I switched from the Mentzer box to the 2e books fairly soon, and I probably read the glossary once and forgot about it (in my head, a glossary is just something to tell you what terms mean, not a source of rules) unlike the rest of the books that had things to refer to repeatedly.

I started my D&D journey with Mentzer, and moved to 2e in 1989 (it's the edition which saw more continuous time at the table than any other), but we rarely used ability checks in either games. Didn't particularly like General Skills when they appeared first in GAZ1, but the 2e NWPs saw a bit more use at the table.

 

[rabindranath72]

This is expanded upon in DMGR5 by Jonathan Tweet.

He goes very far and discusses other methods to create non-linear chances, by doing things like making difficult actions use say 1d4+16, which creates situations where there is a high minimum threshold on the ability to succeed or using die smaller than a d20 without any modification for particularly simply tasks for most of even moderate skills, but still allows for failure by below average ones, like a flat 1d12. And bell curves of multiple dice, like thinking of the probability curve of 5d4 vs 1d8+1d12 vs 2d10.

I’ve mentioned it previously in this post, but it’s a very useful three pages.

Yes perhaps the only useful pages in that book. Coming from Mentzer the concepts weren't totally alien to us.

 

[Iosue]

I think there are two distinct things to discuss here.

One is B/X as a whole. I think the reason it has resonated with OSR/retro aficionados so much is that it distills TSR D&D to its most essential parts. It's exploration-focused, combat is quick and straightforward, and characters are simple, without much in the way of balance issues. Magic is evocative and effective, without being overpowering, since the highest level spells are 6th level. It has a beginning, when the PCs are weak and vulnerable, a middle where the PCs are stronger and more capable, and an end where the PCs have established their own strongholds and followers. I agree with others in the thread that have suggested that much of AD&D play in the 80s was essentially B/X with AD&D races, classes, and monsters. B/X lends itself to being built upon, and expanded upon.

The other is Moldvay's basic rules as an introduction to the game. This is what I wrote at the end of my Let's Read of those rules:

The genius of Moldvay Basic lies in distillation. The "design" itself is still essentially OD&D/Holmes Basic Rules. There's not much innovative when looked at from that point of view. But Moldvay had a keen eye for cruft, and he cut away so much that, while interesting, was not needed. The Order of Events in One Game Turn, the Combat Sequence, I'm sure they seem passe when viewed from the perspective of today. But for an 11 year old, learning how to play and run the game just from reading the book, they broke everything into easily manageable chunks. While the effects of the sensational Egbert case cannot be discounted, I do think this is much of the reason B/X sold so well at that time.

The scope of D&D has expanded. It's not all about dungeon or wilderness exploration. It is not particularly about exploration at all. Combat, instead of being something quickly resolved, is now a load bearing pillar of the game, with much design thought put into character abilities and the balance thereof. The goal of adventure design is now in providing players with multiple choices through a storyline, ideally one tied to the backstories of the PCs, giving them personal stakes in what happens. This is not a criticism; this is the result of demand by the playerbase. That said, it's a lot for a first time DM to take on, least of all a first time DM who's never played before.

Moldvay guides the first time DM's hand by limiting the environment: it's a dungeon. The players' major choices are forward, backward, left, right, enter a room, or keep moving. He gives simple, concrete procedures: this is what you do on an exploration turn. This is what you do when there's an encounter. This is what you do when there's a combat. This is how you stock a dungeon. How many of us got our start with just that one 64-page book? And he wisely provides some room for PCs to grow. And with that very basic experience, the DM can build out: wilderness exploration, city exploration, heck, non-exploration adventures. The Mentzer Red Box and the Brown/Denning Black Box iterated on what Moldvay accomplished, but I'm not sure he's ever been bettered.

 

[MerricB]

The genius of Moldvay Basic lies in distillation. The "design" itself is still essentially OD&D/Holmes Basic Rules. There's not much innovative when looked at from that point of view. But Moldvay had a keen eye for cruft, and he cut away so much that, while interesting, was not needed. The Order of Events in One Game Turn, the Combat Sequence, I'm sure they seem passe when viewed from the perspective of today.

The lack of these in the new DMG (and strong dungeon creation rules) is a major factor in me being disappointed in the 2024 DMG.

Moldvay is incredibly important as a refinement of the ideas Arneson and Gygax were hinting at in OD&D and later. There's a lot that is actually innovative in his work, and it's notable that the Red Box set does very little to actually improve the rules (and does a lot to hamper their presentation).

Is there more the modern designer could say than what Moldvay covered that would be useful to the new DM? Absolutely. But he covered the basics incredibly well - something I'd say is very lacking from the current edition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So. If I'm understanding this correctly:

1. Straightforward, clearly-explained rules with good organization.
2. The text clearly defines terms, rather than relying on "natural language."
3. There is an extensible rules framework for how to resolve actions not otherwise defined.
4. Much of the text is focused on tools, useful advice, and concise examples.
5. The text simplifies/eliminates some player choices, e.g. in character creation.

Would that be a good summary of the things Moldvay Basic did, seen as an early draft of design choices that much more "modern" games would flesh out more fully later?

 

[PHATsakk43]

So. If I'm understanding this correctly:

1. Straightforward, clearly-explained rules with good organization.
2. The text clearly defines terms, rather than relying on "natural language."
3. There is an extensible rules framework for how to resolve actions not otherwise defined.
4. Much of the text is focused on tools, useful advice, and concise examples.
5. The text simplifies/eliminates some player choices, e.g. in character creation.

Would that be a good summary of the things Moldvay Basic did, seen as an early draft of design choices that much more "modern" games would flesh out more fully later?

I’d say that 3. is a bit of an overstatement. There’s a direction in there to deal with such situations, but it’s not necessarily as explicit as you’re summarizing.

 

[deganawida]

B/X is D&D, in a way that I don't think any edition before or since has managed to capture. It is archetype D&D, the Platonic version of D&D, and I honestly do not know that it can be topped.

There's something else about it, too, which I think gets missed in retroclones. There is a definitive voice to the writing and editing which is almost fatherly, in that it's like when my own father would show me something new as a child (model planes or ducks, for example), going through steps from beginning to end, not haranguing or saying things have to be one way, but gently showing how to get a wonderful end result with simple steps and procedures. I know when I read OSE, the text felt dry and distant, instead of warm and teacherly. This voice given by Moldvay, Cook, and Marsh gives me actual pleasure whenever I read through the rules again.